Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In view of the fact that the Defendant was the first offender and the Defendant was in a deep depth and was not in an economic situation, the sentence of the lower court’s sentence (a fine of KRW 7,00,000) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts, even though the victim reversed the victim's statement on the background leading up to the interview by the police, since the victim consistently stated the victim's attempt to commit rape after the reversal of the statement, the credibility of the victim's statement in this part is recognized in this part. On the other hand, the defendant's assertion denying rape is insufficient in light of the following: (a) the defendant was objectively obvious that he was unable to pay compensation for sexual traffic at the time; (b) the defendant was unable to be paid for sexual traffic; and (c) the fact that the victim's bridge was committed 2 or 3 times; and (d) there was no circumstance in which the victim and H demanded money from the defendant; and (b) the defendant's argument denying rape was found in the police suspect interrogation about the fact that the defendant attempted to rape the victim. Nevertheless, the court below rejected the victim's statement and accepted only the defendant's defense, and found the defendant not guilty of this part of the charges by misunderstanding this part of the charges, considering the motive, object of the crime in this case.

2. Determination

A. On February 6, 2014, the gist of this part of the facts charged by the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts is as follows: (a) the Defendant, as indicated in the judgment of the court below on February 6, 2014, cannot engage in a sexual relationship with the victim G (in this case, there is no opportunity between the places of residence of 14 years old and that there is no money under water, and thus, with the victim.